-- coordinated plan by focusing on the lung cancer diagnosis an treatment continuum. many cases affect those who never smoked or those who quit smoking, many decades ago. it affects women, low-income americans who are disproportionately affected by lung cancer but it is especially the case for the brave men and women who defend this nation an put themselves in harm's way to defend our freedom. veterans' whose services put them at higher risk for lung cancer have needs that remain unmet. they suffer from a higher incidence of lung cancer mortality than nonveterans but additionally the rate of lung cancer is nearly twice as high among those in the military compared to the larger u.s. population. as a physician i know that

success against lung cancer reer -- requires we approach lung cancer comprehensively just like other major illnesses. prevention and wellness with early detection, treatment options and research must be adequately funded and coordinated just as for heart disease, breast cancer, h.i.v. and aids and others. that's why i bro stewsed h.r. 1394, the lung cancer reduction act of 2011. we must coordinate activities to combat lung cancer in vulnerable populations including our active military and ensure that for them as well as others that early detection, treatment, and research is adequately supported with benchmarks to gauge progress. we owe it to our nation's heros to coordinate early screen, treatment and care and reduce lung cancer mortality among members of the armed forces and our veterans whose exposure to carcinogens is an active duty to their lung cancer risk.

i would seek the help of the ranking member to pursue this work and the defense health program within the department of defense. mr. dicks: will the gentlelady yield? mrs. christensen: i'll yield. mr. dicks: i will work with the gentlelady on d.o.d. lung cancer research which we have $10.2 million in the budget this year and money for other forms of cancer. and treatment efforts in light of the serious problems facing military members. and this is a very serious problem and i'm glad that you've called it to our attention and i look forward to working with you on this important issue. mrs. christensen: thank you. with that i would yield back the balance of my time. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by

mr. kinzinger of illinois. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to research, develop, manufacture or produce or procure a newly designed flight suit or integrated air crew ensemble. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. kinzinger: thank you, mr. chairman. there is no bigger supporter, i don't think, in this body of the air force than me. i'm an air national guard pilot, i've been an air national guard pilot for a while now and continue to be even in my service in congress. but part of what we have to do in this body is find areas of essential versus nonessential spending and one of thosey areas i believe is nonessential -- those areas that i believe is nonessential is $100 million that will be spent if this amendment is not adopted to develop a new flight suit in essence. i think at a time when we're working at supporting defense as best we can and finding out

areas where we can prioritize and make that essential, i think it's important to stop the design of this flight suit and allow that money to be spent in other areas. we've met with the folks that are developing this, that are looking at the idea of this new flight suit and i'm still convinced that the right thing to do at this time is to halt the development and manufacture of this. so i would just stand and urge the adoption of this amendment and i'd yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> i move to strike the last word, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: first of all, the committee would like to thank the gentleman from illinois for his service in the air national guard and obvious his service in congress -- obviously his service in congress. the gentleman from illinois has made a compelling argument and we're prepared to accept his amendment. however we want to be clear that we will continue to study the issue as we support the

continued advancement of the safety of all of our pilots. we just want to make that understood. it needs more study, we're in support of your amendment. mr. kinzinger: i thank the gentleman. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment -- i'm sorry. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i just wanted to strike the requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: the amendment would prohibit d.o.d. from developing or manufacturing a new -- newly designed flight suit for members of the armed forces. in november, 2010, the air force awarded a $99.4 million contract over seven years to research, develop and manufacture the flight suit. the november award ended a nearly three-year competitive bidding process. the air force requires that the new flight suit must protect airmen from flames, all kinds of weather, chemical attacks or radiation. in high gravity that can cause

air members to black out. so i urge the rejection of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. -- the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offer by ms. lee of california. at the end of the bill before the short title add the following -- ms. lee: i ask unanimous consent to consider the amendment as read. the chair: is there objection? >> i object. the chair: the objection is heard. the clerk will read. the clerk: section, it is the policy of the united states to withdraw all united states armed forces and military contractors from iraq by december 31, 2011, and no provision of any

agreement between the united states and iraq that amends -- ms. lee: madam chair, i ask for unanimous consent to considerate amendment as read. the chair: is there objection? >> i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. without objection, the reading is suspended. the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: thank you, madam chair. i'm pleased that my colleagues and friends, congressman nadler and woolsey, are joining me in offering an amendment that makes it the policy of the united states to withdraw all members of the united states armed forces and military contractors from iraq by the end of this year. more importantly this amendment also clarifies that the timeline cannot be changed unless it is in the form of a treaty requiring the advice and consent of the senate or else otherwise authorized by an act of

congress. we must ensure that 45,000 united states troops who remain in iraq and our military contractors leave iraq at the end of this year as is stated in our nation's status of forces agreement with iraq. this is of concern because this week the president and some of his advisors are considering just how many troops they can leave behind. senators and others are publicizing their opinions. senator mccain of arizona has suggested 10,000 to 13,000 troops remain to serve for support in intelligence arenas, as air support and as a peace keeping force. others may eventually call for even more to remain. at the same time the government of iraq is feeling pressured on multiple sides to either ask us to stay or to ensure our departure. as one of the original founders of the out of iraq caucus, along with congresswoman maxine waters and congresswoman lynn woolsey, our position has been clear all along.

we oppose the war and the occupation from the start and we have worked day in and day out to end it. we believe that ending the occupation of iraq means withdrawing all troops and we mean all troops and all military contractors out of iraq. it would be unacceptable to have troops remaining in iraq after december 31, 2011, unless of course there was a treaty or an act of congress. leaving troops would hurt u.s. national security interests by adding credence to insurgents narrative about the u.s. being a permanent occupying force. america's interests in iraq and the region will be best served by eliminating our military presence and making greater use of our nation's assets, including diplomacy, reconciliation, commerce, development assistance and humanitarian aid and we've already said in policy that there should be no permanent military bases in iraq. iraqis must be responsible for the security of iraq which they

have demonstrated more and more as we have been pulling out of their country. the american people have no interest in extending our presence in iraq and they are looking to congress to ensure that we bring our troops home and focus the savings on the challenges facing our nation today. furthermore we need to ensure that if any security commitment is required, that such commitment be established by a treaty or an act of congress. i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation under an appropriation bill, therefore it violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part that an amendment to a general appropriation bill should not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment gives affirmative direction in effect. i'm asking for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any other member wish to be heard on the point of

order? the chair will rule. the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california proposes to express a legislative sentiment of the house. as such the amendment constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. lee: thank you. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. lee of california. at the end of the bill before the spending reduction amendment insert the following, section, prohibition on use of funds. none of the funds made available by this act may be used for any account of the department of -- ms. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be -- that the amendment, excuse me, be suspended. the chair: is there objection? mr. frelinghuysen: i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. without objection, the reading

is suspended. the gentlewoman from california is recognized for five minutes. ms. lee: thank you. madam chair, i join my esteemed colleague, mrs. january schakowsky from illinois, -- mrs. jan schakowsky from illinois. this amendment would freeze the department of defense's programs at the fiscal year 2011 levels unless the financial statements of the department of defense for f.y. 2011 are ready to be audited in six months from the date of enabilityment. however, this amendment would exempt -- enactment. however, this amendment would exempt military personnel and national guard, these personnel accounts would be actually exempt. also the defense health program account from this potential funding freeze. it also contains a waiver for any potential harm to national security or combat forces. in these financial times, they're very difficult financial

times, we all know. more and more people are learning the importance of keeping to a budget and being able to track where every single penny of their paycheck goes if they have a paycheck. for too many americans right now, survival boils down to appropriately spending and saving every dollar and every cent that they have and budgeting what little money they have left. sadly the department of defense inspector general and the government accountability office have documented that the defense department cannot tell the american taxpayers how their money is being spent. that really is quite shocking. we cannot wait any longer for the books to be able -- excuse me, we cannot wait any longer for the books to be audited. this requirement first came down in 1990 and over the years this requirement, that they keep the books that can be checked over, has been pushed back to 2017. already the department of defense has stated that they need an extension.

how many times do we turn our backs on an agency spending money without being able to account for it? how many more stories of expensive ash trays and overpriced hammers do we need to have before we begin to deal with this in an effective way? the bloated pentagon budget, filled with waste, fraud and abuse, must be able to be audited. the american people expect to know where our defense dollars are going. they pay for this defense department. and they expect congress to be the watchdog of these agencies. in fact, i believe that it's critical that the department of defense not only be ready for an you had its but pass an audit. today i -- an audit but pass an audit. today i urge my colleagues to be fiscally responsible and hold the pentagon books accountable to get its financial books in order. we require that of the business sector, of the private sector, we require that of our own family budgets. why in the world don't we require that of the pentagon? where so much of our hard-earned

tax dollars are being spent. and so we should freeze their spending, freeze their budget until we know what they're doing with their money. an audit is a very reasonable request and i hope that the other side understands that this really is in the spirit of fiscal responsibility and helping to ensure that the pentagon's books are in order. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriation bill should not be in order if changing existing law -- existing law. the amendment gives affirmative direction in effect. i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does any member wish to speak on the point of order? the chair is prepared to rule.

the chair finds that this amendment includes language conferring authority. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. cloment 77 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. huelskamp of kansas. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. huelskamp: thank you, madam speaker. i rise this evening to make sure that america's military bases are not used to advance a narrow social agenda. earlier this year, the navy chief of chaplains anouned that military chaplains who desire

to perform same sex marriages would be allowed to do so following the repeal of the policy known as don't ask, don't tell. it was said that chaplains could perform same-sex marriages in states where such unions are legal. apparently the navy has backed away from such instruction but tepidly and weakly and in a way that would allow them to back track again. in thinking about what make ours military successful two things come to mind. conformity and uniformity. men and women who join our military are to conform to the military standards, not the other way around. regardless of where a ship is docked or a plane parked, our service members know what to anticipate and thousand behave. rules and expecting as are the same everywhere.

with a policy that's flexible and changes based on the state, the military doesn't embrace its one size fits all mentality that made its so accomplished, disciplined and orderly. as the navy and other branches prepare for the repeal of the 1993 law, hours upon hours have been presented to men and women in uniform. such instruction has included warning that fail wrur to embrace alternative lifestyles would result in penalties for service members. what will happen to chaplains who decline to efficient over same sex ceremonies? the directive states that chaplains may perform same sex civil marriage ceremonies, but i fear that chap mains who refuse to may find themselves under attack and their careers threatened. madam speaker, we must ensure the religious liberty of all military members, particularly that of chaplains. in my family, i've had a military chaplain who served

approximately more than four decades, so this is particularly important to me personally. but regardless of how someone feels about the repeal of the policy known as don't ask, don't tell, i think we can adepree that instructing military chaplains that they can perform same-sex marriages goes beyond the instruction to repeal that law. in fact, it's not just an overreach but a direct assault on the defense of marriage act. it should be noted that these two laws pass with bipartisan support and were signed into law by democrat president bill clinton resm peeling don't ask, don't tell was supposed to be about allowing military -- people in the military to serve openly, not allowing same-sex marriages in contravention of the defense of marriage act. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment in order to assure conformity and uniformity to the military order not the other way around, and to promote consistency with federal laws on marriage. i yield back the plans of my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington arise? mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to the the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i rise in opposition to any amendment that seeks to delay the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. some of the majority continue to try to legislate this issue even though the repeal of don't ask, don't tell was approved with overwhelming bipartisan support in december. as of last month, more than one million u.s. service members, roughly half of our armed forces, have been trained on the new law allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the mill tear. our military leaders, led by admiral mullen, have stated that they have seen no adverse impact on the force and that training is going very well. the current expectation is that all members of the active an reserve force will -- reserve military force will be trained by mid august. last month, secretary gates

indicated in an interview with the associated press that he sees no roadblocks to ending the ban on openly gay military service. current secretary panetta said he'd work closely with the joint chiefs of staff to assess whether the element for certification in the law are met before approving the repeal. our service members deserve the right to serve the country, no matter their race, gender or sexual orientation. currently fway an lesbian service members are forced to live under the constant threat of being forced out of the military because of the misguided don't ask, don't tell. i urge my colleagues to rejeck any amendment that seeks to delay implementation and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: thank you, madam chair. this amendment strikes a very dangerous precedent for congress to somehow micromanage the training processes of military chaplains. we have military chaplains from diverse faith backgrounds, we have many faiths, in fact the majority of faiths that, for instance, don't sanctify gay marriage. we have other faiths, i'm a member of the reformed jewish faith and there are christian faith which is do sanction same-sex unions. likewise, it's an important part of chaplain traping that they're allowed to counsel against, for instance, homosexual acts or extra marital heterosexual acts, that's a part of chaplaincy training as well. for congress to interfere with the military processes of chaplaincy training is absurd and unprecedented. with regard to this particular training program, i'd like to

ask my friend from kansas, mr. huelskamp, if i could just yield a moment to him, if he's read this particular training manual that he's seeking to defund here? i yield to the gentleman from kansas. mr. huelskamp: would the gentleman restate his question? mr. polis: i'm sorry, has the gentleman from kansas read the training manual he's seeking to defund in this case? mr. huelskamp: thank you, madam chairman. that's an excellent question, we tried to obtain a copy of that from department of defense today and they refused to provide a copy. what i do have is an online three-page summary of the manual. mr. polis: i think the straight answer is no. in fact, our ranking member an others have been unable to get that from the navy liaison's office. i think it's an offense to the military to second-guess their training for chaplains.

no doubt those documents could eventually come our way and should for oversight activities, but for us to somehow defund the training of chaplains makes no sense. catholic chaplains will be worried to advise their followers that homosexuality is a sin if that's not included in the training. those that -- for whom homo sexuality is not a sign will likewise be worried about avoiding the troops. there will be a void, a huge void. to not train the spiritual advisors to members of our military about the implementation of don't ask, done tell, why not try to not train any troops? there's a whole, whether you supported it or not, i think most of us believe that it was better that there was a training process, than let's say a court had ordered, which has now happened. and instantaneous change. with regard to the chaplaincy, to second-guess a military

training document which they have indicated they will revise accordingly is to show a huge lack of judgment of the men and women who run the military. an enormous lack of confidence in the institution of the chaplaincy, an offense of the chaplaincy to somehow deing that congress is expressing they should not be trained regarding a major military policy that they should take the risk on their own that they should worry about advising members of their faith, with regard to whether homo sexuality is a sin or not, regarding whether members can be married or not. this is a diverse country religiously. and likewise, the institution of our military renects that diversity. to somehow, again, second-guess a military training document that hasn't even been read by the prime sponsor of this amendment shows a tremendous lack of faith and it's a very

dangerous precedence for congress in terms of interfering with the training procedures of the military. we could, of course, as a body or as individual members go through every single training manual, find things we like, find things we don't like. but again, to micromanage the military to that extent, particularly in light of a policy change that has ramifications of the chaplaincy. the chaplaincy is where the rubber meets the road with regard to how members are advised about sexual orientation and what behavors are moral or immoral. to say that congress will tell the chaplaincy not to train anybody on implementing this policy change leave ours soldiers in a spiritual lurch. it leave ours christian soldiers in a spiritual lurch. it leaves our jewish soldiers in a spiritual lurch. all of those who take advantage of the good offices of the chaplaincy in the military just

as of course we have a chaplain in this fine institution, the united states congress. so again, this is a change that perhaps many members of the chaplaincy were not in favor of, some were, depends on their faith position and political opinions but they need to be trained in accordance with military protocols and this amendment would gut that. i trongly urge a no vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: does anyone seek recognition on this amendment? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. huelskamp: i ask for the yeas and nays. i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote. mr. huelskamp: i do.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from kansas will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> i rise to offer an amendment to h.r. 2219. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. tonko of new york. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to pay a contractor under a contract with the department of defense for costs of any amount paid by the contractor or subcontractor to an employee performing work under the contract for compensation if the compensation of the employee for a fiscal year exceeds the rate payable for level one of the executive schedule under section 5312 of tite 58 united states code regardless of the contract funding source. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise?

mr. young: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserves. the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. mr. tonko: thank you, madam chair. the highest individual government salary funded is that of the president of the united states at a total of $400,000 or so i thought. the president is certainly the highest paid public servant. but it turns out that the leader of the free world isn't actually the highest paid executive on the taxpayers' payroll. in fact, the highest federal government salaries by far can be earned by private sector executives who are paid up to $700,000 per year directly in taxpayer dollars. i do not mean executives who earn their multimillion dollar nngs by selling often overpriced and underperforming equipment to our men and women in uniform. though the customer is the federal government, those salaries are paid through trands actions in the private sector. no, i am talking about the federal government salaries

paid directly by the pentagon and other agencies to private contractor executives. direct salaries paid for 100% by taxpayer dollars. you won't find these exorbitant pay rate on government income lips. they're not subject to the current pay and hiring freeze. in fact that $700,000 maximum salary increases every year to reach even greater heights even as we contemplate cutting other areas of our budget to new lows including that of our military service bramplings. these salaries are being paid by a department that has not been able to pass a standard audit in its entire history. it cannot even tell us how many contractors are on its payroll. madam chair, the salary of a typical army private saturdays -- starts at a meager $20,000 per year. general petraeus a four-star yen with 37 years of active service, the commander of the international coalition in

afghanistan and next director of the c.i.a. certains -- earns a salary of approximately $180,000. the secretary of defense earns about $200,000. how then can we justify salaries of up to $700,000 for defense contractor executives? i understand there may be contractors who supply services to our nation that our government cannot perform on its own. however, i am also absolutely certain there is no one single private contractor whos value to our national security is twice that of the commander in chief of the united states military. at a time when the chairman of the joint chiefs is telling us that the nation's deaf is the number one threat facing america, we cannot continue -- debt is the number one threat facing america, we cannot keep paying private contractor salaries that are more than triple the pay of our military leadership. my amendment simply states that funds in this bill will not be used to pay a federal government salary for any individual

defense contractor that exceeds the valerie of the secretary of defense. that sal -- salary of the secretary of defense. that salary is about $200,000. this is a very modest reform. it is not about limiting contracts or contract spending more broadly. it does not deal with outsourcing or insourcing. it does not in fact cap contractor pay which may include private sector projects, profit sharing or other earnings. it merely deals with the salary paid to contractors directly by the taxpayer, limiting the cost of that compensation in an effort to reduce the deficit and stop paying exorbitant federal salaries to private sector employees. i think this amendment forms a perfect compliment to section 8050 of the underlying bill which deals with limiting contractor bonuses. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this amendment and other modest simple reforms that can help us tackle the deficit. with that i thank you, madam

chair, and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: madam chairman, i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change the existing law and constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment requires a new determination and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does anyone else wish to speak on the point of order? the chair is prepared to rule. the chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new determination of the amount of compensation of service employees. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule

21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is -- mr. dicks: for the purpose of a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. dicks: i move to strike the last word. i rise for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy with the gentleman from florida, mr. young, our distinguished chairman. i think we agree that it is vitally important to save money in the joint strike predator program. where it is possible to do so. without negatively impacting performance or schedule. the joint program office in the services which -- and the services which would use the joint strike fighter are to be commended for any efforts to identify potential reductions in program costs. as an example, the air force is currently in the process of validating an earlier internal study of ejection seat options for its variant of the aircraft.

would the chairman agree that if studies like this one make a sound business case that savings will result, then the air force's judgment about how its aircraft can be made more cost effectively equipped could be informed by that conclusion and i yield to the gentleman. mr. young: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i agree with him that we should consider all options for cost savings. should the air force present the committee with a study that indicates potential cost savings in the ejection seat without compromising the f-35's performance or schedule we will certainly look hard at that. mr. dicks: i thank the chairman and look forward to working with him on this and other matters in our oversight of the joint strike fighter program. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report

the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. polis of colorado. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following new section, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to maintain an end strength level of members of the armed forces of the united states assigned to permanent duty in europe in excess of 30,000 members and the amounts otherwise provided by this act for military personnel, army, military personnel navy, military personnel marine corps and military personnel air force in entitle 1 of division a are hereby reduced by, $433,306,000. $6,700,000, and $330,915,000. respectively. the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five -- the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for five minutes. mr. polis: thank you. given the ongoing budget

negotiations, we need to review all options for reducing wasteful spending and i think we have an easy one in this amendment. before we ask the american people to accept painful cuts or accept tax increases we have an opportunity to here -- we have an opportunity here to get defense spending under control in a way that does not jeopardize our -- or harm our national security. if we're serious about deficit redux we need to do something about the defense budget and we can do it in a responsible way that doesn't hurt our national security. my amendment would do that. by getting -- by reducing some 80,000 troops in europe where they're no longer needed we can save hundreds of millions of dollars. what my amendment would do is reduce the total number of troops stationed in europe from 80,000 to 30,000 which is more than enough to continue to support our ongoing operations in libya and iraq and our responsibilities to nato for those members who support them, for those who don't this is not a proxy for those battles. we don't want to cut the troop level so low we can't support those operations.

it will allow the d.o.d. to save money by closing those bases that are no longer needed. by pulling 50,000 troops out of western europe and closing bases we can save money, reduce our redundant military force and c.b.o. has scored the savings of this amendment as over $800 million. on top of the savings reduced by reducing our troop level, my amendment would allow us to station troops in the u.s. instead of europe where it's 10% to 20% less expensive. we would allow the pentagon to close bases across europe that frankly are relics of world war ii and the cold war. the u.s. taxpayer didn't sign up to indefinitely defend our wealthy, western european allies from a nonexistent threat. these bases cost u.s. taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. on top of that they're often unpopular with the local people of the countries they're located in. our european allies are some of the richest countries in the world so why are we subsidizing their defense spending? our european allies have enjoyed a free ride on the american dime for too long.

today our european allies spend an average of about 2% of g.d.p. on defense while america spends 4% to 5%. that means the average american spends $2,5 oun defense, the average european, $500 on defense. now, if europe feels they are under a military threat, first of all, i'd like to hear from -- who it's from. it's not clear who's about to attack france or gemny -- germany. but they can afford to spend more on defense and we can be confident that we can spend less on the defense. he can cannot, we cannot afford to subsidize the defense of france and germany from an unknown and unidentified threat. this amendment does not signal a weakening in our commitment to nato with modern technology we can move troops and weapons quickly across the globe into theaters of operation. we maintain sufficient presence in europe with 30,000 troops for our joint training responsibilities under nato. there's simply no need to have nearly 100,000 troops. it's time to rethink our defense spending. we're not under threat by the nazis, we're not under threat by the soviets.

terrorism is a real threat, it's a threat that's not bound by nations or states and in fact it does not have its main nexus in western europe. maintaining bases in europe is simply not a sane or rational response to this threat nor is it physically responsible -- fiscally responsible. even donald rumsfeld thinks it's time for a change in policy. he wrote, quote, of the quarter million troops deployed abroad in 2001, more than 100,000 were in europe. the vast majority stationed in germany to fend off an invasion by a soviet union that no longer existed. end quote. these cuts proposed in my amendment are part of the recommendations of the sustainable defense task force, a bipartisan project that they brought together defense experts from across the ideological spectrum and proposed commonsense recommendations for saving taxpayer money without jeopardizing our national defense and that's exactly what this is. common sense. at a time when we are seriously considering cuts to wasteful government spending we should not continue to subs dies the

defense of wealthy european nations against a nonexistent nazi threat, a nonexistent soviet threat. let's get serious here. we can start by reducing our military presence in europe, saving the american people hundreds of millions of dollars while protecting our national security interests. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: the gentleman from colorado offered a similar amendment to the 2012 national defense authorization bill earlier this year and it failed by a vote of 96-323. he offered a similar amendment during consideration of h.r. 1 earlier this year which failed by a vote of 74-351.

the setting of our military end strength is not something that should be done lightly. in fact, this is the sole jurks diction of the committee on -- jurisdiction on the committee of armed services. they are responsible for setting military personnel end strengths. and the levels that would be set by this administration -- amendment are significantly below those in the house-passed 2012 national defense authorization act. for that and many other reasons i am opposed to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. polis: on that i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

on the amendment offered by the gentleman from colorado will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. murphy of connecticut. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to purchase noncombat vehicles for use

outside of the united states if such vehicles are not substantially manufactured in the united states as defined in the defense federal acquisition regulation supplement. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman's point of order is reserved. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, madam chair. since 2003 the defense department reports that it has spent approximately $1.3 billion to buy noncombat vehicles from foreign vehicle manufactures. -- manufacturers. you may ask, why is that? we have a law on the books that's called the buy american act. and it generally requires that when we are buying items for use by the u.s. military and they are available here in the united states that they should be bought from u.s. companies, makes a lot of sense, we're going to be spending billions of

dollars in taxpayer money, we should make sure that it goes to fund u.s. manufacturers and u.s. jobs. but here's the problem. there are a number of loopholes, a growing number of exceptions to the buy america law. the biggest is this one. one of the exceptions says that if you are buying a particular good for use outside of the united states, you don't have to comply with the buy america clause at all. well that becomes a pretty a enormous truck-sized loophole when we are fighting two wars abroad. because much of what we are purchasing goes immediately to foreign companies. and so you have a situation where noncombat vehicles like trucks, ambulances, buses, motorcycles, you know, vehicles that are made by a multitude of american manufacturers are now being bought overseas and our taxpayer dollars are going to foreign, european and asian

vehicle manufacturers and into the pockets of foreign workers. this is a much bigger problem than just this one category of spending. the d.o.d. has spent $20 billion in purchases for use outside of the united states. in fact, just this last year, there were about 38,000 waivers to the buy america act for a variety of exceptions an over the last four years, about 161,000 waivers to the buy america act. this is a very large problem as we see growing numbers of exceptions to the act. this one, though, is the biggest. well, i think we've got to pass comprehensive legislation to take on growing waivers from the buy america act this amendment, which i offer, with my good friend representative peters of michigan, will simply restrict the purchase of these everyday noncombat vehicles to vehicles made by american workers. people in my state of

connecticut and around the country are out of work and a $1.3 billion infusion, money that we're going to spend anyways, will help create jobs. to be successful in the 21st century, we can't continue to cede our manufacturing capacity to overseas workers. the department of defense is the world's largest purchaser of many types of products and we must do all we can to make hour we're putting our taxpayers' money to work here at home while not doing any damage to the mission abroad. these noncombat vehicles cowl easily be manufactured by american plants an it's high time we put people back to work here in this country. i urge adoption of this amendment and i yield back the plans of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change pisting law and constitute legislation in an

appropriations bill that therefore violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment requires a new determination and i ask for a ruling from the chair. the chair: does anyone else seek time to speak on the point of order? >> madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. mr. murphy: just to quickly point out that this is a bread an butter vanilla restriction on funning as i understand one of the oklahomas is this would change the duties of contracting officers who don't apply the buy america law, in fact, normal course of training requirements for contracting specialists already educate those specialists in how to buy the -- apply the buy america law whether or not they

currently do it today and i do believe for that reason that the amendment is crer main. the chair: does anyone else wish to speak on the point of order? if not, the chair is prepared to rule. the gentleman from florida makes a point of order that the amendment offered by the el from connecticut proposes to change existing law in violation of clause 2-c of rule 21. as recorded in deshler's precedents, volume 8, chapter 26, section 52, even though a limitation or exception therefrom might refrain from explicitly from assigning new duties to officers of the government, if it implicitly requires them to make investigations, compile evidence or make judgments and determinations not otherwise required of them by law, then it assumes the character of legislation and is subject to a point of order under clause 2c of rule 21. the proponent of a limitation

assumes the burden of establishing that any duties imposed by the provision either are merely ministerial or are already required by law. the chair finds that limitation proposed in the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut does not simply impose a negative restriction on the funds in the bill. instead, it requires the officials concerned to make a determination regarding whether a certain item to be acquired for use outside the united states is substantially manufactured in the united states. a matter with which they are not charged under existing law. on these premises, the chair concludes that the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut proposes to change existing law, accordingly, the point of order is sustained. for what purpose does the

gentlewoman from washington rise? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the deffing. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. herrera beutler of washington. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract that allows the contractor to use amounts paid to the contractor under such contract to pay a tax to the afghan ministry of finance. the chair: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for five minutes. ms. herrera beutler: thank you, madam chair. we are in afghanistan helping to rebuild or in many cases build from scratch infratruckture. when we do leave that country, we will leave that infrastructure mind. power grids, water systems, trained law enforcement, the building blocks of a society. we'll spend billions on

inprufmentes built to better the lives of the afghan people. we don't also need to pay taxes to the afghan government for the privilege of rebuilding their country. that's why i'm happy to bring this to the noor tonight. the department of defense should be focused on -- this amendment would uphold existing law and clarify existing agreements prohibiting afghanistan from taxing u.s. contractors doing rebuilding work in afghanistan. this ban on levying taxes would also apply to those who may not have direct contact with afghanistan. in other words, whether they're a prime contractor or a subcontractor, that company should not be stoument taxes from the afghani government. these are contractors doing rebuilding work in afghanistan,

helping rebuild the afghanis' infrastructure an hopefully allowing them to one day thrive independently. common sense says the u.s. should not be subject to taxation for the rebuilding effort it's paying for. hard working americans and their tax -- send their tax dollars to washington so soldiers on the frontlines have the fools they need to protect themselves and our country not to fill the coffers of foreign governments. i urge its adoption. i yield pack my time. the chair: the yom yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. young: i would like to say that the gentlelady has worked long and hard to write this amendment in such a way as to be acceptable to the parliamentarian. i'm happy to accept her amendment and can for its support. choich the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. dicks: i rise to strike the

requisite number of words. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five mins. mr. dicks: i'm going to read the amendment. none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract that allows the contractor to use ams paid to the contractor under such contract to pay a tax to the afghan ministry of finance. i want to congratulate the gentlelady from washington state for being table work so tirelessly to get this amendment perfected and it's very clear what her intent is and we're prepared on our side to accept this amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> madam chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. lewis of fwea. at the end of the bill before the short title, insert the following, section, the secretary of defense shall post on the public website of the department of defense the cost to each american taxpayer of each of the wars in afghanistan, iraq, and libya. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i rise to reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the point of order is reserved. the gentleman from georgia is recognized for five minutes. mr. lewis: thank you, madam chair. let me begin by thanking the ranking member, mr. dicks, an his staff, for all of their hard work on this legislation. as always, they offer great existence and guidance for all members and staff regardless of our differences on policy.

thank you all for all that you do. madam chair, my amendment is very simple. it requires that the department of defense put on its website the cost of war to each american taxpayer. it is time for america to have a receipt for these 10 years of war. how much cold hard cash has been spent? i've stood here time and time again and listened to debates about how we don't have any money. there's no money for the elderly, no unmany for the sick, no money for the poor, no money for women, no money for children, no money for people who lost their jobs by no fault of their own. it just costs too much. no money for you, or you, or you. but when it comes to war, war in afghanistan, iraq, and now

libya, there seems to be a bottomless pit of resources. it's not fair, it is not right. we nickel and dime the people who need it most but when it comes to war, there's a big, fat blank check. we need to be honest with ourselves. we need to be honest with each other. across the country, the americans, hard working, tax paying citizens who oppose war. they oppose their hard earned dollars being sent overseas to support 10 long years of war. but let me be clear. they do not oppose paying their taxes. they are not anarchists rr anti-government activists. but as conscientious objectors to war these americans want their taxes invested here at home. think want to provide food for

the homeless, pave roads and strong schools. they want medicare and social security to exist for their parents, their children and their grandchildren. they want their tax dollars to care for soldiers and their families when they return home. they will see an end and cure to cancer. they want a cure for aids. they want to see small business thrive. and innovation become the en-in of our economy. they want high speed rail like in asia. they want transit systems that are safe and get people where they knead to go. they want government to work for them. even if you do not oppose war, don't you want to know what it costs you and your family? it's time, madam chair, it's time for the department of defense to be honest with the american people. this is not some wild, crazy, far-fetched idea.

it is simple, common sense. transparency and good governance. this amendment takes a tiny, small step in the right direction. madam chair, it is my hope and prayer that all of my colleagues will support this straightforward amendment. with that, madam chair, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. young: i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill. therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule 21. the rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law. the amendment gives affirmative direction, in effect, and i ask

for a ruling from the chair. the chair: the -- does anyone else wish to speak on the point of order? >> madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from georgia. mr. lewis: i made my point and i don't have another point to make. thank you, madam chair. the chair: thank you. the gentleman yields back. the chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. the chair finds that this amendment includes language imparting direction. the amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule 21. the point of order is sustained and the amendment is not in order. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. young: i move that the committee do now rise.

the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. -- those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. . the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2219 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: of the chair of the committee of the whole reports no resolution on h.r. 2219.

the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for wednesday, july 6, and for the balance of the week, and ms. sheila jackson lee of texas for today after 6:00 prime minister and friday, july 8. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. ms. foxx: mr. speaker. i make the motion that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is now on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly the house stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m.

the president said it was a very constructive meeting but suggested the two sides were still far apart on how to reduce the debt.

we will hear from the president next, followed by nancy pelosi. the british tabloid newspaper announced today it would shut down operations this weekend. following allegations that the publication hacked into the cell phone of crime victims. after that, at a hearing on pending treat -- free trade agreements. >> think how privileged we are to serve here and to have the most interesting legal issues of our times come to this court. >> today mark the 30th anniversary of president reagan's nomination of sandra day o'connor. what kurt appearances. -- watch for appearances on line at the c-span and video library. it is washington your way. >> the white house and congress remain far apart over how to reduce the federal deficit.

president obama and congressional leaders met for 90 minutes and scheduled another meeting sunday. the president spoke briefly to reporters. >> i just completed a meeting from both parties. i thought it was a very constructive meeting. people were frank, we discussed the various options available to us. everybody reconfirmed the importance of completing our work and raising the debt limit ceiling so that the full faith and credit of the united states in america. what we decided is that staff and leadership will be working during the weekend and i will reconvene congressional leaders here on sunday with the

expectation that at that point, the party is well at least know where each other's bottom lines are. hopefully, we will be in aid -- be in a position to start engaging in the hard bargaining that is necessary. i want to emphasize that nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed to. the parties are still far apart on a wide range of issues. again, i thought all of the leaders came the -- in a apirite of compromise. everybody acknowledged that our debt and deficit was something that needs to be tackled now. everybody acknowledged that in order to do that, democrats and republicans are going to be required in each chamber. everybody acknowledged that we have to get this done before the

hard deadline of august 2. to make sure that america does not default for the first time on its obligations. everybody acknowledged that there is going to be pain involved politically on all sides, but our biggest obligation is to make sure that we are doing the right thing by the american people, creating an environment in which we can grow the economy and make sure that more and more people are being put back to work. i want to thank all the leaders. i thought it was a very constructive meeting. i will be seeing them back here on sunday. a lot of work will be done between now and then. >> we will get reaction from house minority leader nancy pelosi on the debt negotiations.

she attended the white house meeting and spoke briefly with reporters after her return to the capital. >> are regularly scheduled press availability will be held on friday. i did want to come out to talk to you about that meeting. as the president has indicated, it was a very constructive and productive meeting. our goal is to have a balanced bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit without doing harm to the economy. to that end, i came to the table as a leader of the house democrats. a very special group. a group -- over 50% of our

caucus are either women or minorities. i have said that although i want to try to agree to contribute to achieving -- how does the president reference id? -- a reference date? i want him to have the room to do its and offer full cooperation to do that. i also want to have full clarity about where house democrats stand. we do not support cuts in benefits for social security and medicare. any discussion of medicare or social security should be on its

own table. i have said that before. we will take a look at social security and looked at it on its own table. do not consider social security a piggy bank for getting cuts to the wealthiest people in our country? we are going to meet again on sunday. between now and then, there will be staff work and member conversations to take us closer to a balanced bipartisan agreement on how we reduce the deficit and help the economy grow. the debate on a budget is a traditionally controversial measure. it is a different value system that we bring to the table. it is of its nature partisan.

it should not be partisan as to whether we will honor the full faith and credit of the united states government. it is unfortunate that these two issues have come together in this way. i think is very important that we remove all doubt that we will not default on past debts. this is not about leaving room for future spending. this is not what this is about. it is about parrying past debts. >> -- it is about paint past debts. >> what is your understanding about what the goal is? what would you be willing to accept? >> one of the points i made at the meeting, i thought it would be really important for us to define our terms. what is the baseline? is it january 2011?

what is the length of time? is it 10 years or 12 years? if there is some kind of a cap on discretionary spending, are there fire walls between domestic versus defense spending so that we do not run into a situation where there are no defense cuts. what is the total amount? i think that is up to the president. we really do have to have a definition of our terms so that we know when we have reached success. >> you said that social security should not be on the table. does using the consumer price index -- would that be acceptable to talk about? >> we did not give in to that level of detail.

that is not a place where we went to great if there is a table that social security is on, it is on its own table. any savings should be plowed back into making social security stronger and the same applies to medicare as well. >> together? >> it will have to gather -- garnered house democratic support. could that compromise garner that support? >> could the changes compromise the votes? i said yes. we have been very clear. democrats are not supporting any cuts in benefits for social security or medicare. we are concerned about the transferring of responsibility from medicaid to the state. we want to make sure that the end -- than he does not go away.

these are three areas of concern. >> [inaudible] >> i do not know if the white house did that. i know what we have read in the paper. i think i can legitimately report to our caucus that their views have been hurt and very strongly so. -- have been heard and very strongly so. if the president was doing this by executive order, what would the bill look like? i do not think -- i think the president wants a bipartisan bill. i think the democrats stand ready to help, but we want to do so without hurting our seniors and people with disabilities. >> did you tell the president that democrats will not support any package with medicare or

social security? >> that was not the nature of the conversation. the nature of the conversation is, what is the playing field that we are on? some of the standards i talked about before. do we want to think big? yes, we all want to think big about how we can reduce the deficit and never have ourselves placed in a situation like this again. this is about past debts. it is not about making room for future spending. we did not begin to that level of conversation. -- we did not get into that level of conversation. >> do you think it is that likely? >> i am glad to hear that he said that. i certainly hope so. thank you. >> next, we will hear from a number of senate republicans on

the debt ceiling and spending cuts. the utah senator starts off the briefing. this is 20 minutes. x we are here to announce that -- >> we are here to announce that we are introducing a piece of legislation. this is a proposal that would rates -- raised the debt limit by $2.40 trillion. it would make the increase conditioned upon the occurrence of three events. some significant immediate

spending cuts. it would take us back to a topline it number, the same number that was found in legislation recently. it would contain statutory caps. it would make it conditioned upon the passage by congress and submission to the states for ratification. a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, one that is based on or closely resembles senate joint resolution 10. it has been co-sponsored by all 47 republicans in the united states senate. this is a big step forward. many of us believe that we cannot bind a future congress.

a promise to cut 3 or $4 billion right now in order to make a downpayment on the debt limit increase is a promise that could become illusory if it is not accompanied by something else. we are identifying that this is one way that we could raise the debt limit. some of us has signed a pledge saying that we would not raise the debt limit unless these conditions have been satisfied. i am one of those people. others among us have not sign the pledge, but have indicated that they would be willing to raise the debt limits in this circumstance. i think the senator from missouri for making this suggestion. it was in response to that that i and others decided to move this forward. we have 21 co-sponsors here in the senate. we look forward to picking up more in the next few days.

we are confident that this is a solution to this awful crisis that we find ourselves in, that could find support in both houses of congress and in both political parties. i will now turn sometime over to my friend and colleague. >> thank you. thank you for your leadership on this. everybody has figured out that voting to raise the debt when it is not a final vote. it is not a popular vote for it many of us acknowledge that failure to do so would be quite destructive. i use that word intentionally. there are no circumstances in which that need occur because ongoing revenue to the treasury is more than enough. it would amount to a partial

government shutdown and that is something that i would like to avoid. that is why i am willing to vote to raise the debt limit. however, the most irresponsible thing we can do is to raise the debt limit and continue with this egregiously excessive spending and enormous deficit that we have been running. this bill makes a substantial increase in the debt limit possible. the element of the bill, the spending cap levels and a balanced budget amendment have separately in joint very broad support among republicans in the senate. we had all but three republicans in the senate voting for my budget on the senate floor and a cap levels are taken directly from that budget. we did that every single republican senators sign onto a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. we know that the public is very supportive of reaching a

balanced budget and reining in spending to do so. i think that this is the right approach. it is a very sensible approach. it has -- the elements have had very broad support within the conference. this particular bill has very quickly garnered a great deal of support within the conference. for some of us, it is a way to convey to the president, we are willing to raise the debt limit, but we have to fix the fiscal disaster that is unfolding. thank you. >> last week, the president chastised congress. come and do some work. we did, we insisted that they canceled the recess. we came back expecting to work and do something about the debt selling -- debt ceiling.

the other issue immediately move to another issue and we defeated that vote. the vote was canceled because we were going to win the vote on monday. or on tuesday. none of us wants to raise the debt ceiling. none of us think it is a good idea to spend money that we do not have. we think it is a problem that we have been doing for so long, but there would be some circumstance under which we would borrow more money. to me, that circumstance is that you have to have a real plan. a binding plan that says, we will do things differently. we can be trusted with the taxpayers' money. we can be trusted to balance the budget. we have to have an amendment to the constitution. i see no evidence that congress is otherwise proving themselves to be trustworthy. we had evaded pay as you go, we have not done a good job here. the problem is getting worse.

i think this is the path to go, the only path to go. i wanted to show that republicans can before -- be for something as long as we get a balanced budget amendment. >> i was one of the people who did not want to sign an do not intend to sign a pledge that says what i will not do. this is a bill that does what i will do. it creates the structural changes that we have to change if we are not going to pursue business as usual. my view is that the debt limit needs to be increased, but i've said repeatedly that the thing worse than not lifting the debt limit would be lifting the debt limit and not changing behavior. we have to change behavior, we have to have structural change.

this approach will do that. it cut discretionary spending roughly back to the 2006 level. it caps spending in other areas. most importantly, it pushes for word the necessity of a balanced budget amendment. i am for all those things. those are the kinds of structural changes that we need. this is a plan that i would like to see. it creates the structural change that would like to see. i do not intend to vote for a debt limit that does not have significant structural change. this bill would be one of the ideas -- it would give us the change that we need and move forward responsibly. there is no question that the

government in the last 2.5 years has acted irresponsibly. we have added 35% to the national debt in 30 months. we talk about things like corporate jets depreciation. it to accept the president's proposal, it might save $3 billion. we are not going to solve this problem by making a big discussion points roughly 16 hours of borrowing and that is what you say is the real problem. that is not the real problem. hopefully, we will see structural changes and we will not continue with business as usual. hopefully, this debt ceiling moment creates the opportunity for the government to do its job and do the right thing. one of the guys came here to do the right thing is centered johnson from wisconsin.

-- senator johnson from wisconsin. >> the only reason i ran for the senate is because we're bankrupting this nation. the only way to prevent that is a two-step process. we have to enact the hard fiscal discipline. in the end, it will limit spending to balance the budget. this is exactly what this bill does. it caps spending over 10 years and puts us on a path toward a balanced budget. we are responsible, we will increase that debt ceiling as long as we fix the problem. as long as the dead cert that congress has passed -- as long as we get certification that congress has passed an amendment, we will increase the debt ceiling. that is pretty reasonable. i'm happy to let other americans, the state, decide if they are willing to put that

fiscal discipline on all of us. i am willing to let the american people to decide whether or not we will continue down this business as usual in washington. this is about letting the american people decide. >> this is like a cousin who has a huge credit card problem. don't worry, i have a solution. the solution is doing something meaningful about the underlying spending and borrowing problems. that is what this approach does. cuts, cap, balance, making that a requirement in terms of increasing the debt ceiling is a responsible way to attack the true problem. i strongly support it.

>> thank you. i congratulate my colleagues for the work they have done on this. we have to change the way we do business. we do not have the money to continue to spend. we simply do not have the money and it is not gone to be coming in any time soon. we have to do what families and states and cities are doing all over america. i agree with senator dodd johnson -- i agree with senator johnson. this is a good way to do it and i am pleased to be supportive. >> we thank you for coming today. let's open up the floor to questions. senator hatch wanted to be here.

he could not make it. let's open up the floor to questions. >> one of the hard issues that he might have to tackle our entitlements. you may be aware that 60% of respondents said we want to preserve social security and medicare benefits. it is more important to them than resolving the budget deficit. how do you respond to that sort of response from the american people in terms of that particular poll? how will that factor into what you are trying to do? >> the balanced budget amendment is agnostic as to where the cuts come from. we are laying down the gauntlet

here by saying that we are going to balance our budget. once the amendment takes effect, congress will have to do that. it will have to make the arrangements to do that. the budget has to be balanced. americans do support that. they wanted to be done, even though they recognize cuts will have to come from many places. they want that to happen. where those cuts come from is not decided by the balanced budget amendment. we are crossing the first threshold of saying that we have to get to the point of balancing. my second response has to do with their current course is not sustainable. the medicare trustees have a knowledge that the program is going bankrupt. the insolvency could be as soon as 2017.

the obligations that have been made today, if they remain unchanged, are not obligations that can be honored in perpetuity by the united states leslie bancroft ourselves. -- come last week bankrupt ourselves. the status quo is not an auction. >> what would you do? what is the path forward? >> that is where the budget legislation comes in. there been several republican proposals put forward to start putting us on a course toward balancing our budget. part of what this legislation takes into account. there are a number of things that we could do to get us on that course. some have suggested converting our current system and to a

premium support model instead of a defined benefits model. >> what do you make of the constitutional argument that the 14th amendment would allow the president to create that debt limit vote? how would congress respond to that? >> treasury secretary tim geithner is mistaken. when he makes the argument that section 4 of the 14th amendment somehow authorizes the executive branch unilaterally to bring about a debt limit increase. what section 4 of the 14th amendment says is that the civil war debts of the united states government would be honored and those of the confederacy would not. the language is limited. instead of saying what tim geithner has insisted that it says, what it actually says is

that the secretary of the treasury wax the authority. the executive branch lacks the authority to disregard outstanding financial obligations. such that a default would be unconstitutional. 80 faults in the sense it's a debt limit increase is not passed by congress -- a default in the sense that a debt limit increase is not passed by the congress. we bring in $200 billion a month roughly. the debt service payments are a small fraction of that, less than 10%. that would mean not under section 4 of the 14th amendment, the treasury secretary has to make sure that those it paid for. he lacks the discretion to withhold those funds and send them elsewhere because he has to honor the debt obligations of the united states.

as approved by a law -- it is congress that makes block. -- makes a lot. -- makes the law. he cannot extend the death of the united states without an act of congress -- the debt of the united states without an act of congress. >> [inaudible] is that something that you can support? >> i would have to see what they're talking about. there are ways of raising revenue. it is a tax increase, that is something republicans in the house and senate are not going to support. >> [inaudible] >> if they are closing loopholes so that they can lower

marginal rates, i think he would find a very receptive audience. >> [inaudible] >> i will not speak for any of my colleagues. let me allow them to enter. >> i've always said that revenues has to be part of the solution. i want revenues through pro- growth policies. it is a lot different than a tax hike. >> i want to make one quick point about revenue. it averages about 18% of gdp. the last three years, it has been under 15%. we are in a horrible recession

but you need more revenue and you have to get the economy going. raising taxes or increasing regulations are hurting the economic growth, not helping it. >> have been gotten senator mcconnell to support the legislation? >> i will be happy to read the current list of co-sponsors. senator mcconnell has not signed on. >> [inaudible] john boehner was just in your lunch. some of the members left feeling a little more optimistic.

did you leave with that impression? are you now more optimistic? >> i have probably been at least hundreds of meetings. he is always an optimistic man and he was optimistic today. if you are a half-full kind of guy, you heard that with optimism. i do think that the president has publicly said he is going to have the same group come back to the white house on sunday. there is a substantial believe that whatever is going to happen is likely to happen in the next

few days. i intend to just wait and see what happens, rather than try to say how i would feel about what might happen. i think it is going to happen or not pretty quickly. that was it -- they are working hard to make something happen, but nothing has happened yet. there is no deal yet. nobody knows what the deal is. we will see how genuine everybody is in trying to get there. if they do get there, they will get there pretty quickly. or they won't get there. >> will you be pushing for a vote on this proposal? >> i will be pushing for a vote on this proposal. how that interacts with the timing of white house proposals is impossible to ascertain at this point. i would like this proposal to

receive a vote between now and august 2. thank you very much. >> [inaudible] >> tomorrow, nasa will launch its final space shuttle flight. atlantis is scheduled to lift off late in the morning. anticipated bad weather could delay the takeoff. on fridays "washington journal," scott pace will join us. they will talk about the shuttle program and the future of space flight. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 on c-span. >> bbc coverage of the closing

of the british newspaper, news of the world." this follows allegations that the newspaper hacked into crime victims. the newspaper began publishing in 1843 in sunday's paper will be its last edition. >> new is international kills off the news of the world. >> i am satisfied. >> i have been speaking to the leader. >> i am not interested in closing down newspapers. i am interested in the those being brought to justice. >> corruption and bribery break

-- corruption and bribery. >> i think they are just scum. we are very vulnerable people. why do we have to suffer again? >> of 40 years after taking over the news of the world, a sinking fast. i will be joined by politicians, newspaper editors, a political editor, and bob woodward. >> liftoff of space shuttle atlantis. >> tomorrow is the very last blastoff. x the world's biggest selling english-language paper has been sacrificed.

a day of high drama. the reason is far from clear. was it simply that the title is now toxic? to pave the way for a new sunday paper? questiont murdoch's -- that remains before david cameron. about his relationship with its former director of communications. we understand will be arrested tomorrow. in a moment, i will be speaking with our next guest. >> this is a storm that has engulfed politicians, papers, and the police. after an extraordinary day, it is not clear how far the damage will go. for david cameron, this is already the most difficult crisis of his premiership.

he has few cards to play. he can do little more than wait and see what happens. he is to see is director of communications as kind of a lucky charm. even when he was forced to resign in january of this year, david cameron refused to cut the man list. >> he resigned from "news of the world." he has been punished twice for the same offense. i choose to judge him by the work he has done for me, for the government, and for the country. he has run the office in a professional and good way. if you compare that with the days of alistair campbell and all that nonsense, he has done an excellent job. >> this scandal could be as damaging as any of those.

mr. cameron cannot change the past. he is personal friends with a predecessor, the current chief executive of news international. the mood among conservatives is anger and fear. one senior said this could easily cost in the next election. >> that hopeful leader connected with somebody you is tarnished. how does he get out of it? david cameron does have moral values and he has returned to those. he has to apologize. to bring such a man into downing street. we have to have an explanation. we need to know about the

relationship with a back of trucks. what did they talk about? -- rebecca brooks. >> news international has revealed e-mails. he authorized a huge payments to corrupt police officers. that would seem to constitute a criminal offense. he was a witness in the trial for the scottish politician. tom sheridan past him, did the news of the world's a corrupt police officers? he replied, not to my knowledge. four words but not require extensive explanation. his lawyer called on the police to investigate. >> when the company announced two days ago that he had offered up payments to police officers

for information, he told the jury that he has no knowledge of payments to police officers. someone is misleading us. he has to answer a perjury charge and that is very serious. >> news international took the action simply not available to david cameron. faced with a scandal that threatens to infect the whole organization, rupert murdoch has taken a knife to his own awkward flesh. >> an extraordinary moment. the victim of its own hocking scandal. >> they are ending a 168-year- old title. >> i am extremely shocked. there are 200 people up there. all of those people have held

their heads up high. it does all been done by people left the organization. >> the editor is now chief executive of news international. she has not lost her job yet. today, murdoch stood by her. >> she is doing the right thing for the company. it is our leadership that has really gotten to grips with this company's history. her leadership is crucial right now. it has what has been moving a lot of this board. but the metropolitan police have been forced to revisit the investigation that they got so badly wrong last time. was it just incompetence? or something far more sinister?

to date is the anniversary of the families who died in those attacks were targeted by investigator working. during the tenure of andy at the paper. >> it should be an independent inquiry. they should distance themselves from news international. >> and an apology? >> yes. i do not deserve this. none of the other families. >> the feel that the prime minister -- do you feel that the prime minister is part of your pain? >> yes, i think he is. he surely knows what is going on.

if he hired someone that was already working for news international. >> he cannot hide from the scandal that is growing fast. >> joining me now is the editor of "the guardian." >> i think this is baffling. the present staff are not associated with it. james murdock pays tribute to them, says what great journalism they are doing. >> if it was done to save rebecca brooks, d think it will have that effect? >> the surprising thing about the memo, james murdoch has confessed everything that we set happened back in 2009.

just blame everything on wrongdoers. to are these wrongdoers? >> you are a manager. is it conceivable that something like a shocking event could go on without the knowledge of the editor? >> we now know this was symptomatic. this is what they did for every story. i spoke to a reporter yesterday, in every story you presented to the editor, would say, where are the messages? most editors find it incredible that you could beat an editor -- could be an editor and he would never ask where the stories came

from. >> what do you make of the timing? >> they now have a tough investigative team. there is probably more stuff coming down the boss look like. -- the slipway. it just looks astonishing. >> let's move onto something that is very important. we understand that he will be arrested. as an editor, you spoke to a senior executive of david cameron before the election. >> there was this odd situation that we knew there was this big murder trial, which involved one of the investigators. it seemed reasonable to try to one camera and that he should -- be 48 took him into -- he should

ask about this. beware. >> are you sure that david cameron knew about these warnings? >> yes. there is a big murder trial, involving one of the people. we could not report it at the time. but you should just know about that. >> having said that, what message did you get back? >> he thought he was going to beat in downing street. nothing came back from cameron. i wonder what sort of the acting -- vetting went on. cameron was either very naive or he just did not go through the

proper processes. >> we will be hearing from you again in a little while. thank you. earlier, i spoke about all this would be a labor leader. >> moments ago, we heard that james murdock made a statement that news of the world will be closing its doors forever. what is your reaction? >> i think it is a big decision. a lot of people are losing their jobs today. one of the people remaining in her job is an executive of news international. it is a big act, but it is not the real issues. >> is a the right decision? >> it does not solve the problem. i am sure it is a concession to members of the public up and down this country love been appalled by what happened. they are right to have been

appalled. i think it is a sign. what i am interested is not closing down newspapers, i am interested in those who were responsible been brought to justice. those who have responsibility for the running of that newspaper taking their responsibility. i do not think those two things that happened today. >> describe backup brooks stays in her job -- if rebecca brooks stays in her job, that would be a slight? >> she should go. she should take responsibility. anyone who runs an organization and to the mountains themselves being in a position of things that happened on her watch, they would think, it even if i did not know about them, somebody has to take responsibility for what happened. the idea that she is leading the

investigation, overseeing the investigation, i think -- that is why i have spoken out. >> what do you think that sheet -- of the allegations that she has been kept as a human shield? >> i will not get into that. i am just interested in the right thing being done. we have the responsibility to speak out on these issues. >> on monday night, guilty of not pushing hard enough on this core issue. >> i do not accept what tom watson said. we all of lessons to learn about the need to speak out on these issues. the history of the labor party a

bad news international is an up and down history. we have all learned a lesson this week. we all learned a lesson about the need to speak out on these issues. >> the the very thing that you were saying, labor has a problem with his international. 1995, at mr. campbell could not dent -- alistair could not see that fast enough. >> i do not remember what i thought at the time. i learned lessons from that episode. not about -- is always going to be the case that politicians want to have good relationships with the press. the press are important. but you have to make sure that you can speak out without fear or favor on the issues. i will not deny that.

the question now is to is willing to show the leadership and speak out on the inquiry that we need. >> two weeks ago, you work at a news international party in kensington. did you speak to rupert murdoch? >> i did speak to them briefly, yes. >> did you raise the issue? >> i did not discuss that with them. >> two weeks ago, you had rupert murdoch in your sights, but you did not raise it. >> this is not about who we talked to. >> you are the leader of the labor party. >> this is our willingness to speak out on these issues. >> labor has its own problems with this relationship. in january, he sent out an e- just newst pick on it

international. it could be other places as well current -- as well. you cannot be comfortable that he did that. >> i am comfortable that the position that we have taken. to speak out on the hiking -- hacking issue. that is absolutely right. and the government have chosen a different course. they have got to act on assurances from news international. they are trying to get assurances from news international. news international assurances are not worth very much a given what we have seen in the last few months. even at this stage, the right

thing for the government to do, the right process to deal with this. >> it is now alleged that he either agree to payments or made payments to police officers. what should happen to them? >> that is a matter for the police. the prime minister has serious questions to answer about the judgment he has made. the hiring of them originally, the bringing of him into downing street's, about what he actually did when he was editor. >> we know that he authorized the payments. is this position tenable? >> i do not want to second- guess police investigation. the police investigation has to

take its course. >> burk criticism of news international -- your criticism of news international. you are now saying, we do not need news international anymore. >> we are learning lessons from the past. i am this is not about me. this is about the republic -- the public that this been appalled by what they have heard. there is this half-game of families. it happened today. there are the families of soldiers that died. that should make us all look at ourselves and think what kind of culture do we have in this country. >> thank you very much. >> joining me now is the chairman of the conservative party.

first of all, we expect the rest of andy tomorrow. your leader made a serious error in judgment. >> he resigned from the world when one of his reporters was convicted. he resigned again. we have not heard of anyone else resigning this week. he made it clear that he takes full responsibility. >> surely it was a catastrophic error of judgment. he spoke to somebody very closely. he said there would be problems. he was warning this. david cameron chose to ignore that. this is a failure of judgment. >> we ought to be very careful. david cameron

prejudge appeared >> one thing we can say with clarity is that when he was the director of communication for his majesty's government, he said that he had no knowledge of payments. it is possible that he allegedly pressured himself. this is a dark day for david cameron. >> these are matters for the inquiry and possibly the court. he actually said he was not aware of plans to correct it. if you look at the transcript, these are matters for the courts. they are not for your eyes peered . these are matters for the investigation.

we cannot determine if someone is guilty or not guilty. the whole point of the investigation is the inquiry that will follow. >> if he is charged with perjury, how uncomfortable will you be about this? >> if it is just perjury, that is a matter for the court. we cannot prejudge that. we need to be very careful about that. >> let's talk more broadly about the position of the takeover. surely [unintelligible] >> they should be. they referred to it had been if he still had the decision appeared >> nick clegg was born. they find it disconcerting that he will not speak to warn david

cameron that actually he quieted the coalitions. >> i do not know what happens. it was not nick lead poses decision. generally, we all have a very long spoon with the news of the world and the news international. they endorsed free elections running by the entire machine. we have had nothing but contempt for them. we treat them with great care. >> let's talk about bskyb. do you think the takeover should be anointed it? >> first of all, these emission is closed tomorrow. the secretary has to wait this out. they take further advice from the authorities. there is still some time to go. the decision about whether the

forecasting will work, parliament decided years ago is not the amount of this. it should be a matter for an independent regulator. it is a continuing duty. they can decide it any time that they are not the proper organization. >> >> one thing that will be decided is that we understand there will be a vote. how will the liberal democrats' votes on that? >> i do not know. it is off here. he said only today that they have an ongoing responsibility for this. to the key point is that it is an insurance for what we know.

>> thank you. the news of the world was a great size for murdoch. he loves nothing more than a tabloid. it is tiny. this is the giant that thesis is core. >> they fought this at the tail end of the '60s. back then, he was in a corner fighting. >> he called me a mop eating kangaroo. and never got past that stage. >> the closure is a sign of the expediency. he is fighting.

the u.k. in the u.s. have long ago taken over. the scandal surrounding the best selling english-language newspaper can threaten them all. these companies have been falling over themselves. murdoch's people feel they boycott was next. they understand it. >> execs know better than anyone because of a public boycotts. sales have remained on the floor because of public anger over the coverage of the tragedy. they lost 75% of the readers. the readers have never come back. >> obviously, that he is the following the empire for 25 years. >> definitely, the brand has

been destroyed. they decide to call it a day. it is unlikely that it will die. they will relaunch it does something else. >> >> james murdoch has been running this. the u.k. is the news corporation. he authorized payoff of to 1 million pounds for celebrities who threatened to sue. now he is saying sorry. >> there was a particular sediment that i authorized. i said -- sentiment that i father is. i acted on the advice of lawyers. this is a matter of regret for me personally. >> it has been a week sent james murdoch was sent to head of the news corporation. he said he put the news of the world scandal and a box. problem over. >> it was not definite that he

would be moving to new york. until it was announced. analysts have been told that he would be the chief executive of the television operations. the upgrade came suddenly. >> cynics felt she had been left to carry it. james murdock says that is not so. >> i am convinced that the leadership of the country is the right thing. she is doing the right thing for the company. >> rebecca brooks is vulnerable. in a corporate structure, she is the last person standing before responsibility lands on the james. these are both broken stories that have developed. in the u.s., he makes 10 times as much as he does in the uk. the share price jumped -- dropped over 3% yesterday. >> he had no shortage of media

scandals. this seems like something different. it is a different level of awfulness. >> he has had a really fix again. he has an aura where criticism bounces off. >> this seems like it has the potential of the more serious. it seems different. >> one of the directors has been dispatched to london. last time he is working for the bush and administration. this led to a rale over phone companies. >> i think this judicial criminal justice model works very well and exclusively in times of peace. >> these are times of crisis. his father will be hoping this can make the boy as his business aheur.

>> seamless the killings rejected that and sabine put in a box with a lead on that it is gone. we have a very big explosion going on. >> absolutely questions about what been new. all this is going to come up. >> joining me -- what did he say about what actually happened? >> it is a very short meeting. it was only five minutes. they had no idea what was happening. she seemed very nervous. everyone thought there just preparing for this.

they said they knew what was happening and what was coming. there is a great sense. there were a lot of young staff there. they have nothing to do with it. they have not even heard of global care. why everyone's losing our jobs. she says it is one of the most professional papers she ever worked on. >> ninth saw this coming. i think what is really tragic is that they had nothing to do with this. i do not know how much more the world could have changed. has been entirely different. >> i have been here for 3.5 years. i am proud to work for this organization. >> what about some of the

others? >> they gathered. it is a bit like a wake. hourly, there were very defiant. they are hardly any jobs. that is a fact. they were furious that she could keep their job. in early, there is a lot there. nobody would say that on camera. they all came down to show their support. here is this television editor. >> distracted, in greek, shock. how would you feel if you are told this. i went into the office just as a decision as i found out.

there was sadness. they are standing around not knowing what to do. there were other things. in i think now we are coming to terms with that. tomorrow is another day. >> john me me now is the political editor. we are joined again. you were there. was it a feeling that said he knew they were being held up to dry? you are a toxin friends. >> it did come from a bolts in the blue. there was a stationary saying can get any worse? nobody expected this. >> did they think it was a good move?

let'>> yes. it was by a previous staff. there is only about the people that work there. >> basically they are saying this privately and not publicly. >> they are not editing it. she has gone into another land. he took over fiber six years ago. >> you have edited to newspapers. what do you make of what has happened today. >> i think it is terrible to blame the news of the world for what has happened. he was to blame? he said the culture and how

high it goes. it comes from the top, and the need to break stories and the decision to break rules. any editors did not know w hahat was going oni. it is inconceivable that they would be paying someone. he was earning 150 grand. >> you think people were out of control? >> yes. it was an industrial scale. i believe they knew. in i completely agree that it is inconceivable that the sums could have gone now without people knowing about it. >> you know him well.

is it realistic that he did not have a grip? he must have kept an eye on what was happening to people. was there no inkling that perhaps he let things go too far? he said it was this the global but he was a control freak. >> i think he let his editors have fun. it is an appalling thing that has happened. he had done very well to expose its overtime. i think rupert murdoch was living in america during this time. it was not in day-to-day control. >> what is your view about why rebecca brooks is still at the

bat when it is clear that not just public opinion a legal opinion will come to that? i want to know the thing he is doing. she is doing a good job. >> it is foolish. >> it is due to the wider vampires. >> despite what has happened in this element. it is one the best thing that has ever happened. without murdoch, there probably no independent or telegraph.

he made the paper profitable. without it, there would be no bskyb our competition for you. >> you not be where you are? they published a story two years ago. for the last two years, they have been wriggling its. they have been highly resistant .arent scene.s is what he is settin a man action and understands.

what is wrong with him? >> in terms and newspapers as he .as said perri >> no other proprietor would have kept it alive. >> we heard there would be a phoenix. this is now a problem across the board. this is the obvious demise. >> there is no hiding the fact that tabloids are suffering at the moment. we were told they have to diversify into a website. we are changing. >> what they have done, if we lost this, we would still be selling more and other

newspapers. >> and is not the end of the tabloids. >> it is whether it is in the news room. it is also about this. the cynical interpretation is that he can see the world will lose money. we get rid of this step. he really had the stuff he wanted lower. out of this to make a lot of money. >> i do not think it was the brand. it is a financial thing. it is being cooked up. >> yardy starting from scratch? >> i agree with you on all of that. all newspapers are under threat from the internet. this is a marvelous paper that we addressed to in america. >> the culture of tabloid

journalism now, this will be a real problem. people see the victims. there'll be more information to come. the more of that this keeps growing, they will tell everybody is tainted. >> the culture we will lose is the culture of the campaigning journalism. we were trying to do this with our campaign. we raise 1.5 million in 48 hours. we had 250 billons locked up. people have not only selling the brand but -- >> and makes it rather confusing. >> astonishing self. -- so. >> it will be sad if we lose tabloids to this.

that will be very sad. it does not need to go. >> i do not believe we would have been in this position and james murdoch and rebekah brooks had taken this position. >> i have no idea. it is a long way off. >> thank you. in a few moments, i will be speaking to bob woodward. all the discussion tonight has been about the end of an era. another end of tomorrow. if all goes according to morrow, the space shuttle atlantis will go off. it is the last a shuttle launch ever. we are talking to the teams that want to take over including one that signing the deal to use the kennedy facilities.

the plan to open it up to everyone not just astronauts appeared what could be the next chapter for human space flight? ♪ >> by tomorrow morning, this beach will be packed as it has been for every significant launch. this is the beach in florida, the closest to the kennedy space center in the launch pad of these benishek. this has been everything from the first american into space to the apollo mission that put our shahram on the moon. and of course, every shuttle launch. -- that put neil armstrong on the moon. and of course, every shuttle launch. it is really a delivery van, a way of getting stuck up to the space station.

four people were aspire, and they think of the moon landing. -- when people were inspired, if they think of the moon landing. your average shuttle launch was not a memorable one. neither was the shuttle good at the [inaudible] the friends say it was still a pioneer. >> it is huge. it is like a big airplane. the fact that it did not turn out to be as inexpensive as people hoped and that we could not fly it does frequently, it was the first generation. no one knew how to build a good space shuttle. >> is it time for a radical change in gear to open up space to more than just elite astronauts? what i1960's, that is was promised, space travel would be for everybody. here in the rockies, they think they might have a way to do

that. in the basement at call erotic university, a team is using now some money to try to find people into space. it is headed by the veteran of five shuttle missions. >> hello. welcome. >> this is a mock up talked into the corner. left nasa. i was convinced it come back and work in the new commercial space industry to attend to take this vehicle off the shelf from what nasa has done to use modern technology and materials to make it into a new spacecraft to use to take humans to the international space station and back. >> this is very nice. we with legitimate to the end of the tunnel. there the plenty of room.

>> in terms of what you have done experimentally, what is this about up here? >> this is a model of the jing chaser. -- the dream chaser appeared >> it appears to the back to earth. there also building a full-size burgeon. they are working out how to better let out the controls in the mock up. it is probably homemade. >> it is a wonderful landing. >> this is how these are programs like this. they started off with cardboard. they made the panels here. they spend $20 on the displays. they built this more rigid suffered -- structure.

did they come out like this. this swap them out. they have different types of ones. >> they spend a lot more money during the same thing we have done. this is as good as anything i ever saw. >> the project has $20 million of money. just a day they signed a deal to take off and land at the kennedy space center. it depends on buying a nasa rocket to launch. they are people who prefer an approach that the books a spirit not of the '60s but of the 1950's. it is doing away with all the bureaucracy.

we can do this. let's do it quickly and cheaply. >> they have settled down. some have already reached the final frontier. the people here want a more step-by-step approach. why is this place unique? it is a few miles from the air force base where pilots flew into the unknown. this is before nasa even existed. the big boys are already here. over there and that tanker is the virgin spaceship roman numeral to -- in that hanger is virgin ii. >> i will give you a tour. >> inside, this one is a rocket claim they have flown in. >> you fit pretty good. you can be a rockette pilot appeared >> had had a chance to

ride in it? >> it is pretty amazing. here in a very quiet airplane. you are looking down this runway. here we go. he hit the switch. then your head is appended to the seat. >> what is the link to what you are doing in the old ones? >> it is similar sure what we did. it was to do incremental testing. just start small. we did that. we build something we felt was safe enough and that we trusted paired >> the first ones are not designed to go into space. it is only for subcortical flight.

it is an easier proposition. there is a team working on a completely different approach. they are waiting for something more simple. >> what do you doing here? >> this is the personal propulsion model. this is the center building components for all our rockets. five of them would be bundled together in a satellite launcher. >> this is crunch year. they plant their first orbital launch for the autumn. they say it is sold out. chief satellites come first. >> this is our 6 per cent

capsule. we will take a pilot and five crew members. >> that is very ambitious. we are standing in front of this wooden mock up. how are you going to convince people that you are ready for flight in three years? >> we have ongoing programs that will demonstrate the viability of these rockets. first of all with their satellite launch vehicles. that will be a great confidence builder. they are looking to travel ourselves. you want to make it as safe and reliable as possible. that is why we build rockets that are so radically simplified in their systems that they will be the safest types of vehicles around. >> do you think you'll be one of the first passengers? >> not one of the first because i will be conducting the launch.

>> it is time given a few years to deal with the dream of making space available to more people, people like you and me. the future may belong to the smaller outfits. to those that played a part in the shuttle years, there is a lot to be proud of. the mission to repair the hubble telescope is perhaps the most lovable. >> i have operated the satellites. i have had a great time. >> maybe he is right. there is a lot to remember. >♪ if you should ever leave me, life will still go on believe me.

the world would show nothing to me. god only knows what i'd be with out you ♪ >> the shuttle may have failed to bring light to the masses. it is never going to do that at the prize. they still had the orbits. >> now back to the news of the world. joining me now from washington is bob woodward, the legendary reporter who brought us watergate. thank you for joining us. how this is still with from where you are sitting? >> it is a lightning bolts.

the idea of closing this newspaper, i've never heard of something like this in the news business because of an investigation, a scandal. initially, i was concerned that the whole government was piling on poor rupert murdoch. for him to close the newspaper is a plea deal. he is saying there is something seriously brought in here, so rotten we are going to get rid of this organ in the body. i think the impact of that is going to be to unleash everyone. i heard two cases to get people saying -- today of people saying this is a giant media scandal, that there are books in it. investigative reporters will be out. there will probably be new revelations.

you will have this very serious opening of the body. i guess it should eventually lead there. >> it is possible. >> tell me about the empire. what do you think about what effect it will have? >> it will depend on the facts. it has all of the elements. he is a brilliant manager. he has done an awful lot. people want to look at all of the details here. he is in for a real -- in it for real.

>> rebekah burks is still in position. it does that have all the elements of a drama as well? >> if you remember, the question was what did he know and when did he know it? it was obvious about rupert murdoch. in the united states, there is a rivalry that has escalated between the new york times and the wall street journal. i noticed today that they had a front-page story about all of

the criticism. there is another story in the business section. the former new york times editor used to say to plug the zone. al have all kinds of reporters working on this. >> he is an elderly man. we do not know who his successor will be. is it your hunch it will survive with the demise? >> is still depend on the facts. it should be a presumption that they do not have the evidence yet? this is a scandal that has been festering for months and years. >> thank you so much.

>> when you have something like that going on, they will say to clean house and get to the bottom. he did not do that. >> thank you so much. joining us. blacks tomorrows morning front- page is the end. [unintelligible] he says the biker world. >> that is all. it was the end of an extraordinary day. we will have this tomorrow with what the next day brings. from all of us, good night.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> remember that's news international announcing the shutting down the news of the world. the newspaper is accused of hacking into the cell phone messages of british politicians, crime victims, and the families of service personnel killed in iraq and afghanistan. before they announced it was closing, members of the british house of commons held an emergency debate. there is the labor spokesman for

home affairs. >> we come to the emergency debate on phone hacking at the news of the world. the house will observe that in the light of interest, i have imposed a seven minute limit on the back bench contributions. it'll take effect after the contributions. it'll depend on early contributions. to open the debate, i call mr. bryan's.

in were hacked by the news of the world. one spoke very movingly. the police and not looking at merely this, there is a 15-year- old daniel jones was objected and murdered in 2001. the charge is even longer. this is particularly worrying given the long third trial.

scandalously, it also seems it targeted some of those police officers who were at various times in charge of the investigation into the news of the world itself. we can only speculate why they would want to do that. he is a not just the amoral actions. they are the in moral and almost certainly criminal deeds of an organization that was appallingly lead. they lost sight of any side of of this spirit is to never have become a commodities. the vast majority of journalists would agree with that. if you want to understand the

complete failure, it just listen himself.rld' there was relentless pressure. to be honest, it is the ethics that is the big issue here. it is just as much as whether the law itself is broken. the private investigators should be ashamed of what happens. those around the newspaper. this is tantamount to this. it is my idea that if she had a shred of decency she would resign. god knows if it were a minister in the spotlight, she would be

demanding this parent sure is not the only magician in the dark arts. in 2006, they produce a devastating report that detailed hundred and thousands of dubious acts by journalist or agents of national newspapers. at the mail on sunday alone. i say with sadness. earlier this year, add the new commissioner we feel that many patient records are far from secure from the prying eyes of

journalists. that is the most private. i am very grateful. >> will you agree with me? there is the question of this excellent report. regardless of politics, it is shameful that the government of the day did not take action when that report was published. >> i will come on later to what i hope will be more mark lee agreed upon. i believe the whole country has failed in this spirit i have paid my own share. i asked rebekah a long time ago about this. the whole political system did not take action. i am aware that many others want

to speak. nor is this just about this. there is the behavior of the metropolitan police. in the course of the limited investigation, which led to the conviction, the police secured a vast amount of information. they could and should have interrogated that. they could have approached all those who were affected. they cut have contacted the mobile phone companies to ensure they are better protected. they did none of those things. >> i put down a written statement on july the 14th. in the end, it is written at the

time. they have confirmed it does not consider anything else extensive in related to the evidence. as uncomfortable as that may be, does that not justify an investigation? >> yes. >> be honest truth is that the lot of lies are being told to a lot of people. when police tell half-truths' to ministers of the crown and the parliament is misled, that is a major constitutional issue for us to face. i hope there will end of being able investigation. at the moment, what hangs around is a very dirty snow.

>> says the reason nothing happened have to do the closeness between the police and be "news of the world?" we knew the assistant commissioner now works for news international. we know that senior officers were wined and dined by senior executives at the very day they were making key decisions about whether any further investigation should proceed against the organization. we know that "news of the world" pays for information. i say that categorically. rebekah003, i asked bsky whether she paid them for information. she said we have paid police

commission in the past bit. we operate within the codes. it is within the law. i do not believe we can pay police officers within the law. you cannot. it should stop. earlier this year, rebekah brooks was asked to clarify that. i was responding to a specific line of questioning on how newspapers get information. my intention was to comment on the belief that payments had been made in the past two police

officers. if i gave the impression i had knowledge of specific cases, i can assure you that this is not my intention. who even more worryingly, only last night we discover that they had handed over copies of documents that appeared to show that the former editor authorized a series of payments to police officers onto tens of thousands of pounds. the truth is, they were doing it appeared that cannot be allowed to get away with it. i know "news of the world" seems to be hanging. surely, the buck stops at these to top. >> i agree with what is being said appeared can we agree that we must not have the possibility of successful

prosecutions of people who did these things? >> i will try to prove this. i think it is absolutely essential. my hope is that people who committed criminality is will end up going to prison. the last thing i would want is for it to hampered the police investigation. he is right. i am not going to carry it there are many who wish to speak. some argue that there cannot be a public inquiry while there is this. i think they are wrong. it is vital that the police investigation is supplemented by a public inquiry. some issues that need addressing a not a criminal. they do not strike at the heart of what an ethical code should look like.

i fear that they could still have it from under their feet at any moment. there is no certainty when the investigations will be completed. many of those involved may have areedded the evidence pu discovered selective amnesia. that is why they have full power to some witnesses. they have to get this under oath. it cannot said in public until the investigation is complete. in this do judge can easily manage the relationship between a police investigation and an inquiry. it to be possible to prepare evidence and secure witnesses without compromising investigations. i'm confident the prime minister

agrees with this spirit -- agrees with this. he appointed to other members. he said he hoped it was dark by the end of last year and be completed within a year. he pointed out that he d the fat criminal investigations were still ongoing. they have received a letter from the inquiry. it makes it very clear that they had not yet started as a rear waiting the to related leave investigations. prepared charry -- prepared matters are in hand. >> i am thankful.

well my friend also accept that the inquiry under peter gibson enter the talks have already been able to do a huge amounts of work in private so that if the investigation is completed the public part can start immediately? >> we make the point i was glad to make myself. i hope that he will make the same point as well. >> he has certainly taken in the wind out of my sails on one point. i agree with him that it was possible. there are other proceedings that may take place. this is one of the reasons why

they have this. i sizzling in the comments he has made. in may not make much process until the investigations are over. >> i'm grateful to this. i think it is important. this is a big concession. it is important that we make progress. sometimes when it comes to an inquiry, i think they will have to look through the this story and of all of that. they made sure it is garnered them. >> i see no reason other than the lack of will for the government not to suffer an inquiry.

they can appoint the members should immediately even if the will not go on to take it. sympathetic.tremely an inquiry of the kind he suggests would require that any individual in his interest was affected by it would have to be legally represented. any such individuals would have to be advised that he/she not answer any question that may incriminate them. were these to be completed, there be no such opportunity for witnesses to refuse to answer questions. >> >> i set the tone in which he is making his remarks. i think we have hesitated to long. it is not that want to rush to justice at all. i want to make sure that justice does and that being done. documents could be seized now.

there are many elements of what the investigation will look like. in needs to be hammered out. they could have proof for discussions. it would make sure that it was available. >> i also believe the need a public inquiry because has beent systematically lied through -- like to throw out. the allies are in less. they have claimed that the phone hacking only stopped in 2004. we know for certain other instances relating to 2003 and 2002. they claim that they had run a full internal investigation. it is clear that if they had,

they did pay the police. otherwise, they did not. they claim they have always helped the police but is only private in civil cases. the police claim that they notified all the victims and had specifically named people were not victims. we know that not all the victims were contacted. some people are told not victims were victims. he briefed them on sunday that he was furious. these are his words. some statements have been at odds with what has subsequently emerged. i'm sorry. leadership does not involve being rude about your staff. it involves taking responsibility for what you say to parliament. to parliament.